I ordered the magpul PRS stock for my 24" Sabre defence upper varmint rifle which I'm thinking about building as featureless. Was wondering if the PRS model will be ok for a featureless build?

1988

06-25-2010, 12:03 AM

Yes.

djleisure

06-25-2010, 12:13 AM

It's actually kind of open to debate and interpretation. Read up a bit and determine if you want to take a possible legal risk... I don't have an opinion one way or the other, because I think they are ugly anyway. :D

Here's a good thread to read: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=302881

bjl333

06-25-2010, 12:26 AM

Since you are building a precision rifle, the bullet button wouldn't be too bad. I just use a pen to drop the mag on mine.

I like the PRS. I could change the settings real quick depending on what position I am shooting from. It is heavy, but so is your upper.

killshot44

06-25-2010, 12:58 AM

The PRS is an adjustable, fixed buttstock. It is not collapsible or telescopic.

It is very heavy, though that may provide better balance for the 24" barrel.

shadowofnight

06-25-2010, 8:01 AM

Being mounted solidly to a rifle length buffer tube with a screw , it can never get any shorter than a standard A2 buttstock....so I dont see any debate or interpretation whatsoever.

The only reason I didnt use a PRS on my featureless ( I already bought the new PRS stock too , I guess I have to build another rifle to use it :) ) was because it didnt leave enough room to use the hammerhead grip with it.

dieselpower

06-25-2010, 8:17 AM

there was only some FUD on the stock...I think and hope that has been disspelled. the stock itself doesnt move, only attachments on it.

shark92651

06-25-2010, 8:43 AM

I know some people argue that it could possibly be considered a "telescoping" stock by an extremely aggressive DA, but that would be a tough sell in my opinion. It uses the same receiver extension tube as the A1 and A2 fixed stocks and the stock itself does not move. If an adjustable buttpad could be considered a telescoping stock then why not a fixed stock with a removable rubber buttpad? Unless you are EXTREMELY risk averse then I would not worry about this.

scubamark13

06-25-2010, 9:36 AM

I use one on my featureless build and I have no worries at all. Like others have said it is adjustable not telescopic. Post pictures when you are done.

Falstaff

06-25-2010, 12:57 PM

Thanks for the tips; Point taken about the rifle being a precision rifle and going BB not being a big deal. The rifle is complete now (with BB) but with a std. A1 fixed stock. I just dont like the looks and it's definitely top heavy with that 24" bull barrel. I can't wait to try it out but I dont have my 10 round mags for it yet.

Would it be OK/legal to take it to range tomorrow with NO mags and use it single shot?
(this is my first foray back into EBR's since the ban, so excuse me if I'm a lil nervous!)

ke6guj

06-25-2010, 1:05 PM

If an adjustable buttpad could be considered a telescoping stock then why not a fixed stock with a removable rubber buttpad?.

maybe because a "removable" stock is not an evil feature, while those metal rods, part of the stock assembly, do telescope into the main stock body?

ke6guj

06-25-2010, 1:07 PM

Like others have said it is adjustable not telescopic..

are there any legal definitions for the terms adjustable or telescoping? If not, be careful.

Rukus

06-25-2010, 1:15 PM

I'm no legal expert, but I'm of the opinion that if the stock can readily change its OAL then it could easily be considered telescoping.

shark92651

06-25-2010, 1:21 PM

maybe because a "removable" stock is not an evil feature, while those metal rods, part of the stock assembly, do telescope into the main stock body?

I don't know, they can extend away from the stock body, making it even longer, but they cannot make it any shorter. Like I said, if extremely risk averse then stay away.

From the CA Assault Weapons Identification Guide:
Stock, collapsing - A stock which is shortened by allowing one section to telescope into another.

Stock, folding - A stock which is hinged to the receiver to allow the stock to be folded next to the receiver to reduce the
overall length of the firearm.

The buttpad on the PRS does not telescope "into" another section of the stock. It would be quite a stretch, I feel, to argue that the internal rod that moves inside the stock is enough to meet this definition.

Could a DA potentially argue that an SU-16 has a folding stock and is therefore illegal? Maybe, but they would probably fail at that argument as well.

Who knows? I think it is quite a stretch, but I guess this is why some consider it a "gray" area. To me, the stock of the SU-16 clearly meets the above definition of a folding stock, but I don't hear anybody warning people not to buy an SU-16 (other than based on the fact that it sucks :D) The debate continues...

ke6guj

06-25-2010, 1:33 PM

I don't know, they can extend away from the stock body, making it even longer, but they cannot make it any shorter. Like I said, if extremely risk averse then stay away. I don't see where the ban on telescoping stocks only applies to one that gets shorter, not longer.

If that was the case, what would prevent someone from making an "extended" carbine buffer tube that was a couple inches longer, so that when used with a carbine stock would be just long enough for some people to shoulder comfortably, and then be extendable for those that need it longer. Would you consider that telescoping since it was designed be made longer, not shorter? sounds like the same arguement to me.

Could a DA potentially argue that an SU-16 has a folding stock and is therefore illegal? Maybe, but they would probably fail at that argument as well.sure they could argue it, but the defense of "the action folds, not the stock" would hopefully prevail.

shark92651

06-25-2010, 1:39 PM

sorry, you caught me in mid-edit - see latest version of my post #14

From the CA Assault Weapons Identification Guide:
Stock, collapsing - A stock which is shortened by allowing one section to telescope into another.

Stock, folding - A stock which is hinged to the receiver to allow the stock to be folded next to the receiver to reduce the
overall length of the firearm.

sure they could argue it, but the defense of "the action folds, not the stock" would hopefully prevail.

There is nothing in the definition of folding stock that says it is not a folding stock if part of the action folds with it. Also, the buttpad on the PRS clearly does not telescope into another section, it butts up against the main body and can "adjust" away from it. Hopefully this argument would prevail as well.

ke6guj

06-25-2010, 2:14 PM

There is nothing in the definition of folding stock that says it is not a folding stock if part of the action folds with it.I wouldn't disagree with that, but it appears that CADOJ may have conceded that position by not arresting people over that over the years. For instance, there are other sections of the PC that I feel make some commonly owned firearms in CA illegal, or, if they want to read the PC a certain way to make them legal, which they have apparantely done, would allow for some firearms types to be legal, but that are too cutting edge right now to talk about. Maybe after Monday :D

But, I could see one arguing in court "what portion of this firearm is the shoulder stock" and then ask, "does any part of that portion of the firearm fold?"

Also, the buttpad on the PRS clearly does not telescope into another section, it butts up against the main body and can "adjust" away from it. Hopefully this argument would prevail as well.until there is case law, or supporting regulations, that clarify what "telescoping" means, then it will be a grey area that people need to be aware of.

I would take the position that it would be a telescoping stock, but in the end, only the arresting LEO, DA/CADOJ, and the jury's position matters.

bjl333

06-26-2010, 1:52 AM

Thanks for the tips; Point taken about the rifle being a precision rifle and going BB not being a big deal. The rifle is complete now (with BB) but with a std. A1 fixed stock. I just dont like the looks and it's definitely top heavy with that 24" bull barrel. I can't wait to try it out but I dont have my 10 round mags for it yet.

Would it be OK/legal to take it to range tomorrow with NO mags and use it single shot?
(this is my first foray back into EBR's since the ban, so excuse me if I'm a lil nervous!)

I am not sure about it, but I would say NO. Because the law states a FIXED magazine. Maybe Shark or ke6guj can chime in on the matter !!